Jharkhand High Court
Kumari Puja vs Avinash Kumar Pandey on 30 June, 2026
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad, Sanjay Prasad
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
F.A. No. 189 of 2025
-------
Kumari Puja, aged about 30 years, wife of Avinash Kumar Pandey,
daughter of Ashok Kumar Pandey, resident of Flat No.M/1 Tube Colony,
P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
… … Appellant/Appellant
Versus
Avinash Kumar Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Pandey,
resident of Qr. No.2 N-4, Gaghra Road, Old Baridih, P.O. Baridih, P.S.
Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
… … Respondent/ Opposite Party
With
F.A. No. 328 of 2023
——-
Avinash Kumar Pandey, aged about 33 years, son of Sanjay Kumar Pandey,
resident of Qr. No.2N-4, Gaghra Road, Old Baridih, P.O. Baridih, P.S.
Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum
… … Respondent/ Appellant
Versus
Kumari Puja, aged about 30 years, wife of Avinash Kumar Pandey,
daughter of Ashok Kumar Pandey, resident of Flat No.M/1 Tube Colony,
P.O. Baridih, P.S. Sidhgora, Town Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum,
Jharkhand
… … Petitioner/Respondent
——-
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
——-
In F.A. No.189 of 2025
For the Appellant : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Harshikha Kumari, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
In F.A. No.328 of 2023
For the Appellant : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Advocate
Mr. Akhouri Awinash Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. J.N. Upadhyay, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Kavita Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Harshikha Kumari, Advocate
----------------------------
1
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
CAV on 14/05/2026 Pronounced on 30/06/2026
F.A. No.189 of 2025
Prayer
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-wife under
Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, assailing the Judgment dated
26.05.2023 passed by the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family
Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No. 475 of 2021.
By the said judgment, the marriage between the parties stood dissolved, and
the respondent-husband was directed to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- towards
adjustment of cash and other properties received by him at the time of
marriage. The appellant-wife, being dissatisfied with the quantum so
awarded, has preferred the instant appeal seeking enhancement of the said
amount.
F.A. No.328 of 2023
Prayer
2. The instant appeal preferred by the appellant-husband under Section
19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 is directed against the Judgment dated
26.05.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Principal Judge, Addl. Family
Court-I, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Original Suit No.475 of 2021,
whereby and whereunder, the learned Family Judge has been dissolve the
marriage vide decree of divorce and the appellant-husband was directed to
pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, in lieu of cash and other property received by
him in the marriage. The appellant/husband is aggrieved to the extent that
the appellant was directed to pay sum of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakh), in lieu of cash and other property.
2
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
3. Since both these appeals emanate from a common judgment and order,
they are accordingly being disposed of by this common order/judgment.
Facts
4. Since both the appeals are arising out of common judgment dated
26.05.2023 and similar facts are there and as such, the facts of the cases are
required to be referred herein.
5. The brief facts of the cases as mentioned in impugned order, which
required to be enumerated, need to be referred as under:
6. It is the case that the petitioner/plaintiff is the legally married wife of
the respondent/husband and their marriage was performed on 24.02.2019
according to Hindu rites and customs at parental house of the petitioner. It
is further stated that both the parties and their parents have been living at
Jamshedpur and all the rites and rituals of the marriage was celebrated. In
the said marriage as per the demand of the respondent and his parents, the
petitioner’s father has given Rs. 10,00,000/- cash to the respondent in
presence of the witnesses and the petitioner’s parent and their relatives, have
given various gift articles of wooden bed alongwith cushions and pillows,
almirah, T.V. Set, Air Conditioner, Gold and Silver Ornaments and other
domestic articles worth of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the Respondent. After few
days of marriage, the respondent and his parents started torturing the
petitioner physically and mentally and demanded more amount of Rs.
20,00,000/- and they also put the demand before the Petitioner about
transfer of her salary to the joint account of petitioner and her respondent
husband and the respondent and his parents pressurized to compel the
petitioner’s parent to fulfill the said demand.
3
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
7. It has been stated that when the petitioner refused to fulfill the aforesaid
demand, they started abusing in filthy languages and threatened with dire
consequences to do away with her life. Despite threats with criminal
intimidation, the petitioner continued her conjugal life at the matrimonial
home having keeping in view in her mind that the respondent and his family
members would pay sufficient regard with much influence in future, but the
respondent and their family members did not do so and the respondent and
his family members continued torturing by not providing sufficient food
and other requirements of daily life to the petitioner.
8. It is stated that the respondent/husband and his family members created
environment of domestic violence in their house. The respondent and their
family members deprived her from right to reside in the house of the
respondent. The respondent and his family members have brutally beaten
and misbehaved with the petitioner affecting her self-respect and body, the
petitioner was wrongfully confined and was restrained, and had to perform
her daily routine work in inhuman nature with no comfort bed to sleep at
night, creating inhuman behaviour with the petitioner.
9. It is stated that the petitioner was pressurized and compelled to refrain
from the company work in which the petitioner is still an employee at
Jamshedpur. The respondent refused to establish to physical relation and
cohabitation since beginning of the marriage and did not spend more time
together under one roof for the happiness of couple. The petitioner was
blamed that she had been in the relationship with another person and her
associate to torture her mentally. The petitioner and the respondent used to
live together, but not as married couple at the place where they used to live
in any part of the country. The respondent and the petitioner have been
4
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
living separately for more than two years, on 21.8.2019 the petitioner has
finally left the house of the respondent and came to live with her parents.
The cause of action arose on 21.8.2019 the petitioner was compelled to
leave the house of the respondent.
10. The petitioner lodged an FIR in the Sidhgora P.S. against the
respondent and his family members for demanding dowry and torture to the
petitioner physically and mentally. In view of the above it has been prayed
for a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized on 24.02.2019.
11. The respondent-husband appeared in the case and filed his Written
Statement in which he has stated that the present suit filed by the petitioner
is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Denying the allegation of dowry
demand it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner had
earlier lodged the FIR being Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 164 of 2019 and in the
aforesaid FIR which is quite exhaustive, the petitioner has not whispered a
single word regarding demand of dowry at the instance of the respondent
or his family members.
12. It is further submitted that the aforesaid false plea of demand of dowry
has been invented by the petitioner solely with a wish to secure a false cause
of action. It is absolutely false to allege that the father of the petitioner paid
Rs. 10,00,000/- in cash to the respondent as per demand made by the
respondent and his father. The marriage was solemnized absolutely free
from demand of dowry and some of the movable articles mentioned in the
FIR were given to the petitioner by her father by way of marriage presents
and not as dowry. The wooden bed with cushions and pillows, almirah,
dressing table, three, briefcases and a box made of tin were given to the
5
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
petitioner, which are still lying with the respondent and the petitioner is at
liberty to take them back whenever wants it. Further while leaving the
matrimonial home, the petitioner took all the gold jewelries which was
purchased by the father of the petitioner through father of the respondent
which were given to her as marriage presents. Further allegation of the
petitioner that other domestic articles worth Rs. 15,00,000/- were given to
the respondent and his family members is totally false and baseless.
13. The respondent and his father both are working as permanent employee
in reputed companies and at no point of time the respondent or his parents
have ever demanded a single penny or any other items far less
Rs.20,00,000/- from the petitioner or her parents. The petitioner herself
demanded the respondent to add her as joint account holder to his salary
account. Neither the respondent nor any of his family members ever used
any filthy language nor threatened with any dire consequences to life. The
petitioner with malafide intention has made these false statements with a
view to seek a false cause of action against the respondent. The respondent
as a caring husband took care of each and every need and requirements of
the petitioner. Likewise, the respondent’s parents also always used to treat
the petitioner like their own daughter and took care of each and everything
she wished. Every day in the morning when the petitioner used to go to her
job, the respondent’s mother used to make Tiffin for her.
14. It has been stated that there was never any domestic violence in the
respondent’s house. She kept her personal belongings including all the
jewelries. The respondent had bought a personal Air Conditioner for her
comfort. She used to sleep in her own room with Air Conditioner all night.
Respondent always used to attend her duties as per her wish at Tata Steel,
6
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
Jamshedpur without any obstruction where she is a high-income earning
employee for more than eight years. Hence it is absolutely false to state that
the respondent or his parents had tortured petitioner mentally and
physically, created environment of domestic violence for the petitioner and
did inhuman behaviour with the petitioner.
15. The respondent stated that he was having a healthy relationship with his
wife like any other married couple no matter wherever they stayed, they
stayed together i.e. Jamshedpur, Goa, Mumbai or any other parts of
Maharashtra. It is further stated that after two days of marriage, the
petitioner went to Mumbai with the respondent and they led their
matrimonial life in Mumbai. The petitioner used to talk over her mobile for
hours together and on being asked by the respondent, she used to give out
that she was talking to her mother. After 3 to 4 days, the respondent again
noticed that his wife (petitioner) was talking to somebody over mobile
phone. The respondent secretly stood behind the petitioner/wife and
overheard the entire conversation the petitioner was having with somebody.
16. The petitioner, however, disconnected the phone as soon as she could
feel presence of the respondent. The respondent accosted petitioner and
confronted her as to whom she was talking to, to which the petitioner
confessed that the said person was her boy-friend with whom she was
maintaining relationship even before the solemnization of their marriage
and on being asked by the respondent she gave out the name of the person
and the petitioner further told the respondent that she wants to maintain her
relationship with the said boy and the respondent could not stop her from
doing so.
7
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
17. The respondent submits that it is absolutely false to state that the
petitioner left the house of the respondent on 21.08.2019 and had gone to
live with her parents. On 7.5.2019, the petitioner and her
respondent/husband came to Jamshedpur, where the family members tried
to reason with the petitioner and requested the petitioner that she should not
maintain any relationship with any other person other than her husband.
Even then the petitioner used to threaten that she will lodge a false criminal
complaint in police and send the respondent and his family members to jail.
Thereafter, when the respondent’s parents called the petitioner’s father to
come to their home and talk to the petitioner and try to convince her that
whatever she was doing was wrong. The petitioner also started threatening
the respondent and his parents for implicating them in false police
complaint. The petitioner kept on threatening and after no constructive
response from the petitioner’s father, the respondent was left with no other
option and accordingly one informatory petition being No. 42 of 2019 on
9.5.2019 was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Jamshedpur, wherein he has disclosed a number of omission and
commissions made by the petitioner.
18. It is further stated that on 11.5.2019 a meeting was convened in course
of which, it was decided that Ashok Kumar Dubey (petitioner’s father)
should take his daughter (petitioner) from her sasural for few days, so that
the matter may be subsided in the meantime. Accordingly, on 13.5.2019, at
about 7.30 pm, Sonu Dubey, brother of the petitioner, came to the house of
the respondent and the petitioner was formally taken to her parent’s house.
While going back to her parent’s house, the petitioner took all her gold
ornaments including those which were given by the respondent’s family.
8
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
The respondent and petitioner have been living separately from 19.30 pm
on 13.05.2019. The petitioner was staying at her parent residence since 13
May, 2019. All of a sudden on 21 August, 2021 at around 17:30 pm the
petitioner came to the residence of respondent and started shouting and
abusing the respondent and his family members, the petitioner did not have
any decency of words and language towards the respondent and his family
members.She had also brought about ten to fifteen men who were standing
few meters away from the house of the respondent. Then the respondent
and his family members locked their house and went outside of their home.
The petitioner then called police by dialing 100 and filed a false complaint
in Sidhgora Police Station by leveling all sorts of false and frivolous
allegations against the respondent and other family members.
19. It is mentioned that the respondent has some photographs of his wife
with her boyfriend showing the intimate relationship they had, which was
shown along with informatory petition to the police and after making
inquiry and being satisfied with the same the Sidhgora police allowed the
family of the respondent to go home. On 1st September 2019 the
respondent’s mother had filed a written complaint in Mahila Aayog,
Jharkhand against the harassment that was faced by her and other family
members due to the ill behaviour at the instance of the petitioner. Despite
receiving the notice by Mahila Aayog, the petitioner did not turn out before
Mahila Aayog. On 2nd September, 2019 respondent and his family
members came to know through a local news report that an FIR was lodged
on them at Sidhgora Police Station on 1 Sep. 2019 being Sidhgora P.S. Case
No. 164 of 2019 against the respondent and his father, mother, sister and
brother-in-law.
9
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
20. There are false and baseless allegations and the said case is pending for
trial. It has further resulted in a lot of mental harassment to the respondent-
husband and his family members. The false and baseless allegations were
later confirmed by the police, charge sheet was submitted in the instant case
against the respondent and his family members of the respondent, police
submitted that no preliminary case was made out and accordingly their
names were not mentioned in the said charge sheet.
21. The averments made above it becomes manifest that the petitioner
herself is a guilty spouse and the respondent is now convinced that it is not
possible for him to lead a harmonious conjugal life with the petitioner any
further, the respondent has no objection, if the marriage between the
petitioner and respondent is dissolved by decree of divorce.
22. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant/petitioner-wife
had a motion by filing a petition.
23. On the basis of pleading of both the parties, the learned Family Judge
has framed altogether six issues which are as follows:
(i) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the Petitioner has got valid cause of action for
the suit?
(iii) Whether the respondent after solemnization of marriage
treated the petitioner with cruelty?
(iv) Whether the respondent has deserted the Petitioner since
21.08.2019 for a continuous period not less than two years
immediately preceding the presentation of this suit?
(v) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to obtain a decree of
divorce sought for?
(vi) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any other relief or
reliefs of this suit?
10
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
24. The appellant/plaintiff-wife in order to establish her case, examined
herself as P.W.1 and her father namely Ashok Kumar Dubey and her uncle
Kamlesh Ojha as P.W.2 and P.W.3 respectively. No documentary evidence
has been filed in the suit by the appellant/plaintiff-wife.
25. On the other hand, the respondent has adduced evidence as R.W.1
Avinash Kumar Pandey (himself) and other witness R.W.2 Sanjay Kumar
Pandey (father of the respondent).
26. The respondent-husband has produced documentary evidence, i.e., Ext-
A-Certified copy of FIR, Ext.A/1-Certified copy of Chargesheet, Ext.B to
B/3-Joint Photographs of the parties, Ext.C to C/5-Printout of Photograph
of the wife of respondent and her boyfriend Shubham Kumar Singh, Ext.D-
Certified copy of Informatory Petition No.42 of 2019 dated 09.05.2019 and
Ext.E-Photocopy of application written by respondent’s mother to
President, Rajya Mahila Ayog.
27. The evidences have been made on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter,
the judgment has been passed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner -wife and
held that the petitioner-wife is entitled for divorce on the ground of cruelty
and desertion and she is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from
the respondent-husband in lieu of cash and other properties received by him
in the marriage, which is the subject matter of the present appeals.
Submission of the learned counsel for the wife:
28. It has been submitted that the father of the appellant/wife has paid huge
amount to the respondent at the time of marriage and further the respondent
is employee of Religious Support Services and is monthly income is Rs.
1,25,000/-. Further, it has been submitted that the learned Family Court has
11
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
been wrongly mentioned that appellant-wife is an employee of Tata Steel
since 2013 and is having monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. Rather,
applicant/appellant-wife has stated in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that she
was trainee in the year 2013 and became permanent in October, 2016 in
Tata Steel and is having monthly salary of Rs. 22,000/-. Therefore, it has
been submitted that the learned Family Court has wrongly assessed the
income of the appellant-wife.
29. It has been submitted that the respondent/husband has already
performed second marriage on 06.02.2024. It has been contended that huge
amount has been spent in the marriage of the appellant/wife and several
articles were given which is more that Rs. 8 lakhs but the learned family
Court has directed to only pay Rs. 8 lakhs.
30. It has been submitted that in view of above facts the amount may kindly
be enhanced and Rs. 8 lakhs as ordered by the learned court below, which
has not been paid as yet, may kindly be directed to be paid to the appellant
with interest.
Submission of the learned counsel for the husband:
31. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband, while assailing
the impugned judgment, has submitted that the judgment dated 26.05.2023
(decree dated 01.06.2023) is neither sustainable in law nor on facts and the
same is liable to be set aside.
32. It has been contended that the Learned Family Court below has passed
the impugned judgment and ordered mechanically and has not applied its
judicious mind.
12
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
33. The learned counsel for the husband states and submits that the learned
Court has completely overlooked while directing the respondent-husband
to pay a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-in lieu of cash and other properties received.
In this regard, it is stated that the amount / cash received had already been
returned through bank transfer in favour to the father of the appellant-wife
on 14.12.2018 much prior to the institution of the Suit and with respect to
ornaments purchased by the petitioner and father of the petitioner has also
been detained by the wife.
34. It has been submitted that the respondent husband is only aggrieved
with respect to the amount of Rs.8,00,000/- directed to be paid by the
respondent husband.
35. It has been contended that while passing the direction of Rs.8,00,000/-
to be paid by the respondent husband, the learned Family Court failed to
consider the fact that jewelleries were given by the respondent husband /
father of the respondent to the appellant wife. By referring the aforesaid
fact, it has been contended that the said part of order by which direction
was passed upon husband to pay Rs.8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and other
properties alleged to be received by the husband, is erroneous and not
sustainable in eyes of law.
Analysis:
36. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the finding recorded by the learned Family Judge in the impugned
judgment.
37. Before adverting into merit of the case, it needs to refer herein the
following admitted facts :
13
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
(i) The motion seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty
and desertion was instituted by the appellant/petitioner-wife before the
learned Family Court.
(ii) Upon consideration of the documentary materials and the oral
testimonies adduced by both sides, the learned Family Court has
granted a decree of divorce, and further directed the
respondent-husband to pay a sum of ₹8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and
other properties alleged to have been received by him at the time of
marriage.
(iii) Both parties i.e. the appellant-wife (respondent in F.A. No. 328 of
2023) and the respondent-husband (appellant in F.A. No. 328 of 2023),
stand aggrieved only to the extent of that portion of the judgment
whereby the respondent-husband was directed to pay the aforesaid sum
of ₹8,00,000/- in lieu of cash and other properties alleged to have been
received in marriage.
(iv) The appellant-wife has assailed that portion of the judgment
contending that the sum of ₹8,00,000/- awarded is wholly inadequate,
whereas the respondent-husband, on the other hand, has urged that the
said amount is an inflated figure.
(v) It is further an admitted position that the respondent-husband has
since solemnized a second marriage, from which he has been blessed
with a daughter child.
(vi) It is an admitted position that both the appellant-wife and the
respondent-husband are employed personnel and are in receipt of a
regular monthly salary from their respective vocations.
14
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
38. It needs to refer herein that it would be evident from order dated
26.03.2026 passed by this Court that the learned counsel for both the parties
in both the appeals had sought a week time to have instruction on the issue
of settlement and accordingly time sought for was granted by this Court.
39. Thereafter matter was taken up on 16.04.2026 wherein it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for respondent/husband that there is no
chance of settlement. In view of aforesaid submission since the present
matter needs adjudication on the issue of alimony, the Court had directed
both the parties to file affidavit showing their worth movable, immovable
property and the payslip. For ready reference the 16.04.2026 is being quoted
herein which reads as under:
“07 / 16.04.2026 Reference may be made to the order dated
26.03.2026 so far as it relates to passing of the order in the instant
appeal. The matter was deferred for a week to have instruction on
the issue of settlement.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has
submitted that there is no chance of settlement.
3. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the matter now needs
adjudication on the issue of the alimony.
4. Let the affidavit be filed on behalf of both the parties showing their
worth the movable, immovable property and the payslip.
5. Let such affidavit be filed within two weeks.
6. List after two weeks i.e. on 01.05.2026 under the same heading.”
40. Again, the instant appeals were taken on 14 th May 2026 and in
compliance of the order dated 16.04.2026 affidavit showing their worth
have been filed by both of the parties. It has been submitted by the learned
counsel for the appellant wife that she is not, before the Court, for the
passing of order for monthly maintenance, as she has already solemnized
marriage and also working in Tata Steel Ltd. However, the emphasis of the
argument is that, at the time of solemnization of marriage, the expenditure
incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, details thereof have been furnished in
15
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel for the appellant-
wife. Accordingly, after conclusion of the argument on the point of
alimony, judgment was reserved. For ready reference the order dated
14.05.2026 is being quoted herein which reads as under:
“Order No.09/Dated 14th May, 2026
1. Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has sought for leave of this
Court to accept the affidavit, which has been filed in pursuant to the
order dated 16.04.2026, copy thereof has been served upon the
learned counsel for the respondent-husband.
2. Let this same be taken on record.
3. An affidavit, in terms of order dated 16.04.2026 has been filed on
behalf of both the parties.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-husband has not
intended to file response to the affidavit filed on behalf of the
appellant-wife.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has submitted
that she is not, before the Court, for the passing of order for monthly
maintenance, as she has already solemnized marriage and also
working in Tata Steel Ltd. However, the emphasis of the argument is
that, at the time of solemnization of marriage, the expenditure
incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, details thereof have been
furnished in paragraph-2 of the affidavit filed by the learned counsel
for the appellant-wife.
6. Arguments concluded on the issue of alimony.
7. Judgment Reserved.
41. Now adverting to merit of the case, it is evident from the order
impugned that the learned Family Court has taken into consideration the
entire aspects of the case and had passed the order of dissolution of marriage
and direction was passed upon the respondent husband to pay rupees eight
16
2026:JHHC:19782-DBlakh to the petitioner/wife in lieu of cash and other properties received by
him. For ready reference the relevant paragraphs of the impugned judgment
are being quoted as under:
“43. The respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross-
examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in
Tilak but he does not know that the aforesaid articles were worth Rs.
2,00,000/-. Similarly, respondent’s father RW-2 has also admitted
receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak but he cannot
state the cost of the aforesaid articles. However, RW-2 has admitted
that he had received a cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the
petitioner but he returned Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque to Ashok
Kumar Dubey. He stated that this amount was given to him for
purchase of jewelry and he had purchased jewelry worth Rs.
6,50,000/- from it. However, he has not produced any evidence of
returr. of Rs. 1,00,000/-through cheque to petitioner’s father. Thus,
from admission of respondent’s father in his own testimony before
the court, it is established that ne had received Rs. 8,00,000/- from
the father of the petitioner. Further, though no detail list of articles
or evidence of their cost has been given by petitioner, however from
testimony of respondent and his father and their own admission it is
also established that certain items like T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes
etc. were received by them in Tilak ceremony from petitioner side
which have not been returned. And it is also pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner has already received Rs.2,00,000/- as per
order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in ABA.
44. Now, this court has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to
return of any properties u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or
the petitioner is entitled to get alimony as claimed u/s 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
45.Let us take up first the issue of granting permanent alimony to the
petitioner. Reading of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
indicates that on an application for the purpose of seeking
permanent alimony, made by either of the spouse (wife or the
husband), the Court at the time of passing the decree or at any time
subsequent thereto, pay maintenance and support to the applicant,
which may be gross sum or monthly or periodical payment. The
factors which are required to be considered for just determination17
2026:JHHC:19782-DBof permanent alimony and maintenance as indicated in the provision
are:- (i) the respondent’s own income and other property, (ii) the
income and other property of the applicant, (iii) the conduct of the
parties, (iv) other circumstances of the case.
46.In the instant case, from the disclosure affidavits of both sides,
it appears that the monthly income of the petitioner is near about
same as the monthly income of the respondent and she is living in
better position than that of the respondent as she is maintaining
two cars and a two wheeler with company accommodation and she
has no dependent on her. Under the aforesaid scenario, it would
not be just and proper to direct the respondent to provide any
permanent alimony to the petitioner as claimed.
47.However, what the court finds, that as per admission of RW2, the
father of respondent, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was said to him by the
father of the petitioner. Even though the respondent’s father claimed
that he returned Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque to her father and purchased
ornaments worth Rs.6,50,000/- from rest of the amount this
explanation is difficult to believe as he has not produced any
evidence of return of amount and the ornaments to the petitioner.
The bank statement of the father of the petitioner corroborates the
payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the parents of the respondent through
three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-each. Besides it is also admitted by
respondent and his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc were
given in Tilak to them on behalf of petitioner and the said articles
are still lying with them. The petitioner has claimed said articles to
be worth Rs. 2,00,000/- which value, though denied by respondent,
but by general estimation the amount is not exaggerated. Hence, in
my considered view, the total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to
be returned by the respondent. As the petitioner has already received
Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash Kumar Pandey vrs
State of Jharkhand) the said amount has to be adjusted in any
payment to be made by the respondent.
48. Accordingly, after the adjustment of above amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court directs that the respondent shall pay a sum
of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties admittedly
received by him in marriage. The said amount shall be paid within a
period of six month from the date of decree, failure of which, it is
needless to say, that the petitioner will be at liberty to recover the
18
2026:JHHC:19782-DBsaid amount through the Court. For that purpose, the decree shall
be treated as the money decree. This issue is therefore decided
accordingly.
CONCLUSION
49. So, from the above discussed evidence, facts and circumstances,
I find that the Petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of
cruelty and desertion U/s 13 (1) (i-a) and 13(1) (i-b) Hindu
Marriage Act. And she is also entitled to receive a sum of Rs.
8,00,000/-from the respondent in lieu of the cash and other
properties admittedly received by him in the marriage. And
accordingly, it is hereby,ORDERED
50. That the suit of the petitioner Kumari Puja be and the same is
decreed against the respondent Avinash Kumar Pandey on contest
but without any order as to cost. And the marriage between the
petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 24.02.2019 stands
dissolved by a decree of divorce u/s 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955. And the divorce will be effective from the date
of decree.
51.Further, the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/-
in lieu of the cash and other properties received by him in marriage.
The said amount shall be paid within a period of six months from the
date of decree, failing which, the petitioner will be at liberty to
recover the said amount through the process of Court. And for that
purpose, the decree shall be treated as the money decree.
Office to prepare the decree accordingly.”
42. Thus, from the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned judgment it is
evident that the learned Family Court has denied the permanent alimony to
the appellant/petitioner wife by observing that since from the disclosure of
affidavits of both sides, it appears that the monthly income of the
petitioner/appellant/wife is near about same as the monthly income of the
respondent and she is living in better position than that of the respondent as
she is maintaining two cars and a two wheeler with company
19
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
accommodation and she is not dependent on her. Under the aforesaid
scenario, it would not be just and proper to direct the respondent to provide
any permanent alimony to the petitioner as claimed. However, the learned
Family Court taking into consideration the bank statement of the father of
the petitioner which corroborates the payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the
parents of the respondent husband through three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-
each and further taking into consideration the admission by respondent and
his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc. were given in Tilak to them
and the said articles are still lying with them and has assessed that the total
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to be returned by the respondent husband
to the appellant/wife.
43. This Court in the aforesaid backdrop facts and submission requires to
consider as to: “what would be the appropriate quantum to be paid by the
respondent husband to the appellant/wife on the basis of pleadings
available on record?
44. It is evident from paragraph 46 of the impugned Judgment passed by
the learned Family Court that the learned Family Court has denied the
permanent alimony to appellant/petitioner wife on the ground that as per
the disclosure affidavit, the monthly income of the petitioner/appellant/wife
is near about same as the monthly income of the respondent husband and
she is living in better position than that of the respondent and she has no
dependent on her.
45. At this juncture it needs to refer herein the provision of law as contained
under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, wherein it has been
provided that any court exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the
time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application
20
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
made to it for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may
be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his
maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or periodical sum
for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as, having regard to the
respondent’s own income and other property, if any, the income and other
property of the applicant, it may seem to the court to be just, and any such
payment may be secured, if necessary, by a charge on the immovable
property of the respondent. For ready reference, Section 25 of the Act, 1955
is quoted as under:
“25. Permanent alimony and maintenance.–(1) Any court
exercising jurisdiction under this Act may, at the time of passing any
decree or at any time subsequent thereto, on application made to it
for the purpose by either the wife or the husband, as the case may
be, order that the respondent shall pay to the applicant for her or his
maintenance and support such gross sum or such monthly or
periodical sum for a term not exceeding the life of the applicant as,
having regard to the respondent’s own income and other property,
if any, the income and other property of the applicant 1 [the conduct
of the parties and other circumstances of the case], it may seem to
the court to be just, and any such payment may be secured, if
necessary, by a charge on the immovable property of the respondent.
(2) If the court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances
of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-
section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or
rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just.
(3) If the court is satisfied that the party in whose favour an order
has been made under this section has re-married or, if such party is
the wife, that she has not remained chaste, or, if such party is the
husband, that he has had sexual intercourse with any woman outside
21
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
wedlock, 2 [it may at the instance of the other party vary, modify or
rescind any such order in such manner as the court may deem just].”
46. It is evident from the aforesaid provision that concept of permanent
alimony as provided under Section 25 have been enacted with the object of
removing the hardship of the wife or the husband with no independent
income sufficient for living or meeting litigant expenses; such a leave can
be granted as well who may also be deprived of the same on proof of having
sexual intercourse outside the wedlock. It is also settled position of law that
the Court may grant permanent alimony to the party while disposing of the
main application even if application has been moved; meaning thereby the
intent of the Act is to remove the handicap/hardship of a wife of husband
by passing an appropriate order at the appropriate stage either under Section
24 or 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The basic behind this is to sustain
the live of husband or wife, if having no sufficient source of income.
47. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also considered the intent of Section 25
of Hindu Marriage Act in catena of Judgments wherein it has been observed
that Section 25 of Act 1955 is an enabling provision. It empowers the court
in a matrimonial case to consider facts and circumstances of the spouse
applying and deciding whether or not to grant permanent alimony. Sub-
section (1) of Section 25 provides that a matrimonial Court exercising the
jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act may at the time of passing a
decree or at any time subsequent thereto on an Application made to it, order
to pay maintenance.
48. Thus, a power is conferred on the Matrimonial Court to grant permanent
alimony or maintenance on the basis of a decree of divorce passed under
the Hindu Marriage Act even subsequent to the date of passing of the decree
on the basis of an application made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) of Section
22
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
25 confers a power on the Court to vary, modify or rescind the order made
under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 in case of change in circumstances. The
power under Sub-section (3) of Section 25 is an independent power. The
said power can be exercised if the Court is satisfied that the wife in whose
favour an order under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage
Act is made has not remained chaste. In such event, at the instance of the
other party, the Court may vary, modify or rescind the order under Sub-
section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
49. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kalyan Dey Chowdhury v. Rita Dey
Chowdhury Nee Nandy, (2017) 14 SCC 200.For ready reference,
paragraph 14 of the judgment is quoted as under:
“14. Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 confers power
upon the court to grant a permanent alimony to either spouse who
claims the same by making an application. Sub-section (2) of Section
25 of the Hindu Marriage Act confers ample power on the court to
vary, modify or discharge any order for permanent alimony or
permanent maintenance that may have been made in any proceeding
under the Act under the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of
Section 25. In exercising the power under Section 25(2), the court
would have regard to the “change in the circumstances of the
parties”. There must be some change in the circumstances of either
party which may have to be taken into account when an application
is made under sub-section (2) of Section 25 for variation,
modification or rescission of the order as the court may deem just.”
50. We may note here that an amendment has been brought to Sub-section
(3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act by the Act No. 68 of 1976 with
effect from 27th May 1996. Earlier, it was provided under Sub-section (3)
23
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
of Section 25 that if the Court was satisfied that the party in whose favour
an order has been made has not remained chaste, it shall rescind the order.
The words “it shall rescind the order” appearing in Sub-section (3) of
Section 25 were replaced by the said amendment by the words “it may at
the instance of the other party vary, modify or rescind any such order …..”.
The legislature in its wisdom by the said amendment has provided that after
the facts stated in Sub-section (3) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act
are established, the Court may vary, modify or rescind any such order under
Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Thus, after 1976,
there is a discretion conferred on the Court by Sub-section (3) of Section 25
of the Hindu Marriage Act of declining to rescind, vary or modify the order
under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thereof, even if on an Application made
by the husband, it is established that the wife has not remained chaste after
the decree of maintenance is passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 25.
51. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.
Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 while appreciating the core of Section
25 of the Act 1955 has observed that for permanent alimony and
maintenance of either spouse, the respondent’s own income and other
property, and the income and other property of the applicant are all relevant
material in addition to the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of
the case, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment is being quoted as under:
“12. As per Section 25, while considering the claim for permanent
alimony and maintenance of either spouse, the respondent’s own
income and other property, and the income and other property of the
applicant are all relevant material in addition to the conduct of the
parties and other circumstances of the case. It is further seen that
24
2026:JHHC:19782-DBthe court considering such claim has to consider all the above
relevant materials and determine the amount which is to be just for
living standard. No fixed formula can be laid for fixing the amount
of maintenance. It has to be in the nature of things which depend on
various facts and circumstances of each case. The court has to
consider the status of the parties, their respective needs, the capacity
of the husband to pay, having regard to reasonable expenses for his
own maintenance and others whom he is obliged to maintain under
the law and statute. The courts also have to take note of the fact that
the amount of maintenance fixed for the wife should be such as she
can live in reasonable comfort considering her status and mode of
life she was used to live when she lived with her husband. At the same
time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive or affect the living
condition of the other party. These are all the broad principles courts
have to be kept (sic keep) in mind while determining maintenance or
permanent alimony.”
52. It needs to refer herein that no arithmetic formula can be adopted for
grant of permanent alimony to wife. However, status of parties, their
respective social needs, financial capacity of husband and other obligations
must be taken into account. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of U. Sree
v. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 has observed that while granting
permanent alimony, no arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot
be mathematical exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties,
their respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and other
obligations. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as
under:
“33. We have reproduced the aforesaid orders to highlight that the
husband had agreed to buy a flat at Hyderabad. However, when the
matter was listed thereafter, there was disagreement with regard to
25
2026:JHHC:19782-DBthe locality of the flat arranged by the husband and, therefore, the
matter was heard on merits. We have already opined that the
husband has made out a case for divorce by proving mental cruelty.
As a decree is passed, the wife is entitled to permanent alimony for
her sustenance. Be it stated, while granting permanent alimony, no
arithmetic formula can be adopted as there cannot be mathematical
exactitude. It shall depend upon the status of the parties, their
respective social needs, the financial capacity of the husband and
other obligations. In Vinny Parmvir Parmar v. Parmvir Parmar
[(2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] (SCC p. 116, para
12) while dealing with the concept of permanent alimony, this Court
has observed that while granting permanent alimony, the court is
required to take note of the fact that the amount of maintenance fixed
for the wife should be such as she can live in reasonable comfort
considering her status and the mode of life she was used to when she
lived with her husband. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot
be excessive or affect the living condition of the other party.”
53. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajnesh v. Neha & Anr
reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 has extensively dealt with the issue of
granting interim/permanent alimony and has categorically held that the
objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to ensure that the
dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or vagrancy on account of
the failure of the marriage, and not as a punishment to the other spouse.
There is no straitjacket formula for fixing the quantum of maintenance to
be awarded. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that the Court while
considering the issue of maintenance, should consider the factors like the
status of the parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children;
whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified; whether the
applicant has any independent source of income; whether the income is
26
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
sufficient to enable her to maintain the same standard of living as she was
accustomed to in her matrimonial home; whether the applicant was
employed prior to her marriage; whether she was working during the
subsistence of the marriage, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph of
the aforesaid judgment is being quoted as under:
“77. The objective of granting interim/permanent alimony is to
ensure that the dependent spouse is not reduced to destitution or
vagrancy on account of the failure of the marriage, and not as a
punishment to the other spouse. There is no straitjacket formula for
fixing the quantum of maintenance to be awarded. 78. The factors
which would weigh with the court inter alia are the status of the
parties; reasonable needs of the wife and dependent children;
whether the applicant is educated and professionally qualified;
whether the applicant has any independent source of income;
whether the income is sufficient to enable her to maintain the same
standard of living as she was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home; whether the applicant was employed prior to her marriage;
whether she was working during the subsistence of the marriage;
whether the wife was required to sacrifice her employment
opportunities for nurturing the family, child rearing, and looking
after adult members of the family; reasonable costs of litigation for
a non-working wife. [ Refer to Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge,
Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7; Refer to Vinny Parmvir Parmar v.
Parmvir Parmar, (2011) 13 SCC 112 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 290] 79.
In Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain [Manish Jain v. Akanksha Jain,
(2017) 15 SCC 801 : (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 712] this Court held that
the financial position of the parents of the applicant wife, would not
be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An
order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that
the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income,
27
2026:JHHC:19782-DBsufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of
maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The
court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the
capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is
dependent upon factual situations; the court should mould the claim
for maintenance based on various factors brought before it. 80. On
the other hand, the financial capacity of the husband, his actual
income, reasonable expenses for his own maintenance, and
dependent family members whom he is obliged to maintain under the
law, liabilities if any, would be required to be taken into
consideration, to arrive at the appropriate quantum of maintenance
to be paid. The court must have due regard to the standard of living
of the husband, as well as the spiralling inflation rates and high costs
of living. The plea of the husband that he does not possess any source
of income ipso facto does not absolve him of his moral duty to
maintain his wife if he is able-bodied and has educational
qualifications. [ReemaSalkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12 SCC
303 : (2018) 5 SCC (Civ) 596 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 339] 81. A careful
and just balance must be drawn between all relevant factors. The
test for determination of maintenance in matrimonial disputes
depends on the financial status of the respondent, and the standard
of living that the applicant was accustomed to in her matrimonial
home. [Chaturbhuj v. Sita Bai, (2008) 2 SCC 316 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 547 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 356] The maintenance amount
awarded must be reasonable and realistic, and avoid either of the
two extremes i.e. maintenance awarded to the wife should neither be
so extravagant which becomes oppressive and unbearable for the
respondent, nor should it be so meagre that it drives the wife to
penury. The sufficiency of the quantum has to be adjudged so that
the wife is able to maintain herself with reasonable comfort.”
28
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
54. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, it is pertinent to
record that this Court had, at the initial stage, directed the parties to file
affidavits disclosing their movable and immovable properties along with
pay-slips, keeping in view that the issue involved herein pertains to the
grant of permanent alimony but from thorough examination of the pleadings
made by the appellant-wife in F.A. No. 189 of 2025, it is manifest
therefrom that the appellant-wife has not made claim for permanent
alimony; rather, her prayer is to seeking enhancement of the sum of Rs.
8,00,000/- directed to be paid by the respondent-husband under the order of
the learned Family Court.
55. However, affidavit has been filed on behalf of both the parties wherein
the appellant-wife has taken the stand that in paragraph no. 37 of the
impugned order i.e. Original Suit No. 475 of 2021 it has been wrongly
mentioned that applicant is employee of Tata Steel since 2013 and is having
monthly salary of Rs. 60,000/-. Rather, applicant/appellant-wife has stated
in paragraph 7 of the affidavit that she was trainee in the year 2013 and
became permanent in October, 2016 in Tata Steel and is having monthly
salary of Rs. 22,000/-.
56. On the other hand, respondent-husband has stated in his affidavit that
he has married again and having a daughter from his second marriage.
Further has been stated that altogether 5 persons are dependent on him
namely, Astha Kumari (Wife), Kritika Pandey (Daughter), Gita Pandey
(Mother), Sanjay Kumar Pandey (Father) and Surendra Nath Pandey
(Grand Father). Moreover, loan has been taken of amount Rs. 21,50,000/-.
57. It needs to refer herein that from the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by
this Court, it is evident that the appellant-wife has remarried and has no
29
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
interest in getting per month alimony. However, she has stated that since
the expenditure incurred was around Rs. 33 lakhs, has occurred in her
marriage therefore the direction passed by the learned family court upon the
respondent husband to pay Rs. 80,00,00/- to the petitioner/appellant wife in
lieu of article received by the respondent in marriage.
58. As is evident from the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Family Court, the direction upon the respondent-husband to pay a sum of
Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties received by him at the
time of marriage appears to have been made under Section 27 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, and the same constitutes the bone of contention in the
present appeals.
59. At this juncture it would be appropriate to discuss the core of Section
27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 wherein it has been stipulated that in
any proceeding under the Act 1955, the court may make such provision in
the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property
presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to
both the husband and the wife.
60. Section 27 provides for determination of rights of the parties to the
properties belonging to both of them jointly or either of them at the time of
disposal of a main petition filed under the Hindu Marriage Act. For ready
reference same is being quoted as under:
“Disposal of property-In any proceeding under this Act, the court
may make such provision in the decree as it deems just and proper
with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of
marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the
wife.”
61. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 empowers matrimonial
courts to dispose of and distribute joint property presented to both the
30
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
husband and wife at or about the time of their wedding. It ensures the fair
division of joint marital assets within an active divorce or separation
proceeding. This section specifically applies to property belonging jointly
to both the husband and the wife. It does not cover the exclusive, individual
property of the wife (like her Stridhan) or the exclusive property of the
husband.
62. The property must have been presented “at or about the time of
marriage,” although courts have interpreted this to include gifts and
property exchanged before or after the wedding ceremony, provided it is
directly relatable to the marriage. Further, it may be tied to an active
matrimonial proceeding (e.g., a divorce petition) to avoid the multiplicity
of litigation.
63. Thus, Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an important provision
that governs the rights of spouses in property disputes. This section
provides that any property acquired by either spouse during the course of
the marriage is to be considered joint property, and both spouses have an
equal right to it.
64. Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired property prior
to the marriage, then that property remains the sole property of that spouse.
This means that the other spouse does not have any right to the property,
and cannot claim a share of it.
65. In addition, Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired
property through inheritance or gift, then that property remains the sole
property of that spouse. This means that the other spouse does not have any
right to the property, and cannot claim a share of it.
31
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
66. Finally, Section 27 also provides that if one spouse has acquired
property through a will or other legal instrument, then that property remains
the sole property of that spouse. This means that the other spouse does not
have any right to the property, and cannot claim a share of it.
67. Overall, Section 27 Hindu Marriage Act 1955 is an important provision
that governs the rights of spouses in property disputes. It provides that any
property acquired by either spouse during the course of the marriage is to
be considered joint property, and both spouses have an equal right to it. It
also provides that if one spouse has acquired property prior to the marriage,
through inheritance or gift, or through a will or other legal instrument, then
that property remains the sole property of that spouse. This ensures that
each spouse is able to retain their own property, and that the other spouse
does not have any right to it.
68. On a plain reading of the Section 27 it becomes obvious that the
Matrimonial Court trying any proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955, has the jurisdiction to make such provision in the decree as it deems
just and proper with respect to any property presented “at or about the time
of marriage” which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.
This Section provides an alternate remedy to the wife so that she can
recover the property B which is covered by the Section, by including it in
the decree in the matrimonial proceeding, without, having to take recourse
to the filing of a separate Civil Suit and avoid further litigation. Reference
in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court
in the case of Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna
Kadam reported in (1997) 7 SCC 500.
32
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
69. As per the submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent-
husband, it has been contended that the respondent-husband has already
solemnized second marriage and a daughter has been born from the said
wedlock. In view thereof, the possibility of conciliation between the parties
stands foreclosed, and the only consideration that remains for adjudication
is with respect to the propriety of the amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- as directed
by the learned Family Court.
70. In order to appreciate the aforesaid issue, this Court has carefully
examined several paragraphs of the impugned judgment passed by the
learned Family Court. From such examination, it is evident that the learned
Family Court has extensively dealt with the matter by duly appreciating the
claims advanced by both parties. For ready reference the relevant
paragraphs of the impugned judgment are being quoted herein which reads
as under:
“43. The respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross-
examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in
Tilak but he does not know that the aforesaid articles were worth Rs.
2,00,000/-. Similarly, respondent’s father RW-2 has also admitted
receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak but he cannot
state the cost of the aforesaid articles. However, RW-2 has admitted
that he had received a cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the
petitioner but he returned Rs. 1,00,000/- through cheque to Ashok
Kumar Dubey. He stated that this amount was given to him for
purchase of jewelry and he had purchased jewelry worth Rs.
6,50,000/- from it. However, he has not produced any evidence of
returr. of Rs. 1,00,000/-through cheque to petitioner’s father. Thus,
from admission of respondent’s father in his own testimony before
the court, it is established that ne had received Rs. 8,00,000/- from
the father of the petitioner. Further, though no detail list of articles
or evidence of their cost has been given by petitioner, however from
testimony of respondent and his father and their own admission it is
also established that certain items like T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes33
2026:JHHC:19782-DBetc. were received by them in Tilak ceremony from petitioner side
which have not been returned. And it is also pertinent to mention
here that the petitioner has already received Rs.2,00,000/- as per
order of the Hon’ble High Court passed in ABA.
44. Now, this court has to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to
return of any properties u/s 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 or
the petitioner is entitled to get alimony as claimed u/s 25 of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
47.However, what the court finds, that as per admission of RW2, the
father of respondent, a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was said to him by the
father of the petitioner. Even though the respondent’s father claimed
that he returned Rs.1,00,000/- by cheque to her father and purchased
ornaments worth Rs.6,50,000/- from rest of the amount this
explanation is difficult to believe as he has not produced any
evidence of return of amount and the ornaments to the petitioner.
The bank statement of the father of the petitioner corroborates the
payment of Rs. 6,00,000/-to the parents of the respondent through
three cheques of Rs.2,00,000/-each. Besides it is also admitted by
respondent and his father that T.V., A.C., clothes, utensils, etc were
given in Tilak to them on behalf of petitioner and the said articles
are still lying with them. The petitioner has claimed said articles to
be worth Rs. 2,00,000/- which value, though denied by respondent,
but by general estimation the amount is not exaggerated. Hence, in
my considered view, the total amount of Rs.10,00,000/- is liable to
be returned by the respondent. As the petitioner has already received
Rs. 2,00,000/- as per the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash Kumar Pandey vrs
State of Jharkhand) the said amount has to be adjusted in any
payment to be made by the respondent.
48. Accordingly, after the adjustment of above amount of
Rs.2,00,000/-, this Court directs that the respondent shall pay a sum
of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of the cash and other properties admittedly
received by him in marriage. The said amount shall be paid within a
period of six month from the date of decree, failure of which, it is
needless to say, that the petitioner will be at liberty to recover the
said amount through the Court. For that purpose, the decree shall
be treated as the money decree. This issue is therefore decided
accordingly.”
34
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
71. It is evident from paragraph 43 of the impugned judgment as quoted
and referred hereinabove that the learned Family Court has taken into
consideration the fact that respondent has admitted in para 39 of his cross-
examination that he had received T.V., AC, Utensils, Clothes etc. in Tilak
and has also taken into consideration that the respondent’s father RW-2 has
also admitted receiving Utensils, Clothes, Fruits, Sweets etc. in Tilak. The
learned Family Court has categorically taken note of the fact that RW-2
(father of the respondent husband) has admitted that he had received a
cheque of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the father of the petitioner.
72. Upon perusal of the aforesaid admitted facts, the learned Family Court
has reached the conclusion that, on the basis of the admission made by the
respondent’s father in his own testimony before the Court, it stands
established that a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- had been received from the father
of the petitioner-wife. Further, in reference to the admission made by the
respondent-husband and his father (RW-2) regarding articles such as T.V.,
A.C., utensils, clothes, and upon taking into consideration the claim of the
petitioner-wife that the said articles were worth Rs. 2,00,000/-, the learned
Family Court has fixed the total amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as liable to be
returned by the respondent.
73. The learned Family Court, upon consideration of the aforesaid admitted
facts, has further taken note of the circumstance that the petitioner-wife had
already received a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- pursuant to the order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in A.B.A. No. 2474 of 2020 (Avinash
Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand). The learned Family Court, therefore,
observed that the said amount was liable to be adjusted against any payment
to be made by the respondent, and accordingly directed the respondent-
35
2026:JHHC:19782-DB
husband to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- to the petitioner-wife under Section
27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
74. From the perusal of the aforesaid paragraphs, it is apparent that the
learned Family Court has extensively appreciated the claims of both parties
within the purview of Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
75. Accordingly, it is the considered view of this Court that the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Family Court warrants no interference.
76. With the aforesaid observations, as made hereinabove, the instant
appeals stand dismissed and as such, disposed of.
77. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
I Agree.
(Sanjay Prasad, J.) (Sanjay Prasad, J.)
30/06/2026
Rohit/A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.07.2026
36
